Insight, analysis & opinion from Joe Paduda

Feb
13

Correction on McKinsey study

Loyal reader TrapierMichael (Trapper to his policy friends) questioned the source of a quote used in a post here earlier today attributed to the McKinsey study on CDHPs. Trapper could not find the quote in the article, but did locate it in another report, done by the folks at the Employment Benefits Research Institute, a well-respected industry group.
The EBRI study, entitled “Early Experience With High-Deductible and Consumer-Driven Health Plans: Findings From the EBRI/Commonwealth Fund Consumerism in Health Care Survey” was out in December of 2005; six months after the McKinsey report.
One of the key points in the original McKinsey document was this statement:
it remains to be seen whether CDHP plans with HSAs inhibit the appropriate use of maintenance drugs and treatments for behavioral conditions…”
The EBRI study points directly to this issue, as Spike noted in his quote, albeit mis-cited. This is in conflict with the McKinsey study’s finding that “One striking finding was the increased likelihood of CDHP consumers with chronic diseases to report that they were taking greater responsibility for their health.” CDHP partipants were over 20% more likely to “carefully follow their treatment regimens.”
Of note, the companies implementing CDHPs that did not do so just to lower costs, but invested in employee education, communicated clearly, and provided access to data and information about lifestyle changes, had the most satisfied employees. The employer with the highest employee satisfaction even went so far as to start an employee fitness center, reward employees with cash for attainment of certain health goals, and extensively trained employees on the health plan itself as well as sources for health information.
The research methodology and cohort for each study was different, with EBRI using data from the Harris Interactive Study and McKinsey surveying individuals from specific employers with full-replacement CDHPs (where the old health plan was terminated and replaced in its entirety by CDHPs).
I’d like to get into more detail but I have to get some work done.
Compliments to Trapper for his research, and I’ll try to do a better job of vetting sources.


Feb
13

First Health workers comp leader search nears conclusion

Sources indicate Coventry has made an offer to a person to lead the workers comp division of sub First Health. As noted here previously, several candidates were on the bubble in December. Evidently one has dropped out and an offer has been made to another; expect an announcement this month.
Spencer Stuart is the search firm. Indications are that the new leader will have control over staffing, which might result in changes among the present leadership at First Health.
The new leader will have a few challenges, with the highly profitable workers comp network business under pressure from Aetna and others; several large WC insurers moving business away, increasing pricing pressure from customers, changes to WC fee schedules in several key states, and increasing negotiating strength on the part of hospitals.
What does this mean for you?
A little more turmoil before FH settles down.


Feb
13

Provider profiling in workers comp

There have been several tentative efforts to bring provider profiling to workers comp, with decidedly mixed results. The problems are the usual – bad data, not enough data, poor coding, and insufficient claims counts coupled with widely varying severity making it very difficult to compare physicians.
One of the leading managed care firms in the southeast, CHOICE Medical Management, just announced their new effort in provider practice analysis, and it looks promising. According to CHOICE’s news release;
“”This is the first provider analysis in the industry using data from the whole claim, medical, indemnity and total claim costs, as well as administrative processes,” Tom Barrett, CHOICE president said.”
Providing access to all data, including the critical indemnity and return to work (RTW) data, is vital to assessing the performance of comp docs. With so many dollars riding on return to work, failing to consider this may lead to highly misleading conclusions.
Aetna has also been working on provider profiling, using their extensive database of group health information in an attempt to identify docs that can treat work comp cases effectively. While I admire their effort, there are several key problems with this.
1. RTW is not contemplated in managing a group health patient episode, so there is no way to assess the impact of the physician on disability.
2. Many group health-oriented docs don’t and/or won’t take workers comp patients.
3. Two of the key WC specialties, occupational medicine and physiatry, are either non-existent or barely represented in group health networks. And occ med docs provide a lot of the primary care and case management in comp. How you can assemble a network or assess outcomes without looking at occ med and physiatry is a mystery to me.
4. Group health decisions are often complicated by reimbursement, copay, and deductible issues. There is ample evidence that patients make decisions based in part on their financial impact on the patient. Such is not the case in comp, which is “first dollar, every dollar”.
5. Several studies indicate that medical care for certain conditions is just different for work comp patients than for those covered by group health. Back pain/strain is one example. While all of us agree that a back is a back, the reality is the financial, motivational, and regulatory differences inherent in group and comp drive different medical practice.
What does this mean for you?
A comp-based provider analysis will likely lead to better understanding of comp cost drivers.


Feb
13

No, CDHPs don’t promote good health

Spike has done his homework. UPDATE – well, Spike actually quoted a different report, not the original McKinsey one. I should have done some source checking, did not, and apologize for the oversight.) In response to a comment from another reader (Michael Trapier), he read the entire article by McKinsey on CDHPs et al. Here’s Spike’s quote from the article, which deserves its own post. (again, turns out this quote was from an EBRI research report), and read the comments below:
“While people reported using health services at similar rates across health plans, adults with CDHPs and HDHPs were significantly more likely to report that they had avoided, skipped, or delayed health care because of costs than were those with comprehensive insurance, with problems particularly pronounced among those with health problems or incomes under $50,000. The survey asked whether in the last year respondents had delayed or avoided getting health care services when they were sick because of costs. About one-third of people in CDHPs (35 percent) and HDHPs (31 percent) reported delaying or avoiding care, twice the rate of those in comprehensive health plans (17 percent).
Having a health problem made it more likely that people avoided or delayed care. Among people who reported being in fair or poor health or having at least one chronic health condition, those in CDHPs or HDHPs reported delaying or avoiding care at higher rates than those in comprehensive plans: 40 percent of those in CDHPs and 31 percent of people in HDHPs, compared with 21 percent in comprehensive plans. People with HDHPs and CDHPs in households with incomes of under $50,000 were also more likely to avoid or delay care: nearly half of those in CDHPs and more than two in five in HDHPs reported delaying or avoiding care, compared with one-quarter (26 percent) of those in comprehensive plans in that income range.
In addition to delaying or avoiding health care, people in HDHPs were significantly more likely to skimp on their medications than were those in comprehensive plans. The survey asked respondents whether in the last 12 months they had not filled a prescription because of costs. More than one-quarter (26 percent) of those with HDHPs said they had not filled a prescription because of cost, compared with 16 percent of those in comprehensive health plans (Figure 17). Having a health problem made it more likely that people avoided filling prescriptions, particularly those with HDHPs: One-third of those in HDHPs with health problems had not filled a prescription because of cost, compared with one-fifth (21 percent) of people in comprehensive plans.”
That’s a (rather lengthy) quote from the study you cited. In fact, that whole study talks about how total healthcare use is the same for each group, but out of pocket costs are way higher for those in CDHPs and that people in comprehensive group care found that their plan made it easier for them to incpororate costs into their decisions about treatment.
As for health economics, the reality is that as long as there is EMTALA, (which says that hospitals must treat patients in need of emergency care regardless of their ability to pay), creating systems where preventive pay is discouraged will only be more expensive for all of us. And I don’t see anybody having the political will to void EMTALA. We’re all in this together, whether you like it or not.”
That’s a lot of good work, Spike.
Notably, the time period for the study did not enable the researchers to identify changes in health care costs over time. One has to wonder if the failures to comply with drug regimens etc. would actually lead to increased health care costs over time. Actually, you don’t have to wonder.
BTW – the McKinsey report also notes that CDHPs did have a substantial correlation with participants’ awareness of costs; desire to seek alternative treatment, and likelihood of involvement in healthy behaviors. But I wonder if the latter was not an artifact, and if the participants’ healthy behaviors made it more likely that they would select CDHPs.
What does this mean for you?
More evidence that CDHPs will do nothing to reduce medical expenses.


Feb
11

Ohio BWC scandal investigation

Just when I was afraid this was going away, it rears its grinning head again. The scandal at the Ohio Bureau of Workers Comp (you remember, the group that had invested claimant reserves in rare coins, questionable securities, wine (!) and other “non traditional financial vehicles” remains under investigation, and the investigators need $85,000 more to finish up.
For those in need of a refresher on this most entertaining of scandals, here’s the background.
Dare we hope that even more revelations are forthcoming? Perhaps junkets to foriegn lands to investigate real estate opportunities? Jewelry bought as an investment to increase reserves, temporarily stored around the neck and wrist of an illicit girlfriend? Art work safely ensconced in the homes of BWC execs? Rare cigars, safely guarded in a BWC-funded humidor?
A blogger’s delight!


Feb
11

Higher copays = higher costs

A post at “over my med body” (grahamazon.com) about the correlation between copays and adverse health outcomes pointed me to an interesting study published in the American Journal of Managed Care on the correlation between raising drug copays and decreased compliance.
Here’s the net – increasing copays for people on cholesterol-lowering drugs led to lower compliance. Lower compliance led to increased hospitalizations and other bad and costly outcomes. According to the report:
“Although many obstacles exist, varying copayments for CL )cholesterol lowering) therapy by therapeutic need (reducing them for those who would benefit the most) would reduce hospitalizations and ED use


Feb
11

McClellan’s rose colored glasses

Director of the Center for Medicare/Medicaid Services Mark McClellan was up on Capitol Hill yesterday testifying on Part D, conveying the message that all was going better, improvements were being made, and the cost of the program was lower than anticipated.
When one remembers that McClellan is the brother of White House press secretary Scott, his facile comments and ability to re-interpret reality are more understandable.
I’m reminded of the comments whispered to me by the mother of the young lad named “most improved” at a youth football dinner: “he was so bad at the start of the season that just running without falling down was a huge improvement”. While the Part D program is nowhere near running, and has yet to even advance beyond the crawling stage, it is likely to improve. That’s the good news. The bad news is the fatal flaw of adverse selection, discussed here ad nauseum, but still eluding the denizens of Capitol Hill.
One highly contentious issue continues to be the law preventing HHS from negotiating directly with pharmaceutical companies on drug prices. According to ABC News; Sen. Snowe (R ME) and what a great name for a senator from Maine…
“questioned the way the program was working and pushed for legislation that would allow the government to negotiate for better drug prices. The initial legislation included no such provision, an omission that at the time was seen as a boon to drug companies.
Snowe and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., have drafted bipartisan legislation that would give government the power to negotiate prices.
I can’t imagine why we’d spend $700 billion on this benefit and not allow the secretary to maximize the taxpayers’ money,” Snowe said.
Me neither.


Feb
9

Corvel earnings up, revenues down

Corvel Corporation announced that earnings were up substantially although revenues dropped by 10% in the last quarter of 2005. EPS were up 45% from a year earlier, despite a decrease in revenues from $70 million to $63 million. The announcement followed other recent news indicating continued struggles by CorVel.
The company’s press release blamed the drop in revenue on various contributors including the decrease in workers comp claims, offshoring of jobs, regulatory compliance issues, and the hurricane.
Well…all these may have had some impact, but claims did not drop 10% from the prior year, and the jobs that were outsourced were not in retail, transportation, food service, health care, and construction, major contributors to the nation’s occupational injury count.
What’s really happening? Likely several issues. First, CorVel has been looking for a COO for some time, likely recognizing that there are internal challenges (i.e. problems) that need more and better attention. Second, CorVel’s IT infrastructure is highly decentralized, making it tough for the company to compete for national business. Third, their provider network is faring poorly in competition with Aetna, First Health, and Focus.
Rumors have been floating about the possibility of a leveraged buyout of CorVel. Anything’s possible.


Feb
9

Part D enrollment will fall short

A June 2005 CMS Office of the Actuary report estimated there would be a total of 36.8 million enrolled in Part D in fiscal year 2006. Thus HHS Sec. Leavitt’s stated goal of 28-30 million enrolled in Part D by the end of 2006 either reflects an updated guesstimate or indicates the previous goal is now viewed as unreachable, or perhaps both. (remember almost 22 million seniors were automatically enrolled in Part D on 1/1/06) Especially when one recalls that the calendar year has three more months than the fiscal one.
As Bob Laszewski points out, historically the big enrollment date for employee benefits and health plans has been January 1. With all the hype, publicity, politicians-on-the-road-show circuit and marketing leading up to that date, and with that date well behind us, it looks very doubtful that enrollment numbers will even come close.
The well-publicized enrollment mess surely has not encouraged seniors to jump into a plan that had already confused them.
So, despite the taxpayer funding 75% of the costs of the program, millions of dollars in advertising and strong support from elected leaders (sell, some of them at least) and six weeks into the program, we have enrolled a grand total of less than 4 million into the voluntary program.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of a privatized health care plan based on competition in the private sector.
What does this mean for you?
Bad news for advocates of national health insurance provided by private payers. That was me too, but I’m not nearly as convinced today as I was this time last year…


Feb
8

PBMs and Part D

There is an excellent objective review of the role of PBMs in managing Part D costs at California HealthLine. While I hesitate to summarize what is already a summary, here are the main points.
1. The absence of any “transparency” requirements in the Part D enabling legislation makes it impossible to determine without legal investigation how PBMs may benefit from rebates and other confidential financial transactions.
2. There was an amendment proposed that would have addressed this but it was shot down due to the administrative expense ($40 billion over ten years).
3. Self-dealing, namely the direction of patients to a PBM-owned pharmacy, is not illegal, and is a likely fallout from Part D. This is not bad per se, as mail order costs are significantly cheaper, and the home delivery service means folks do not have to get out of the house to get their scripts (which may actually be a good or bad thing).
4. Not noted is the failure of the legislation to allow CMS to negotiate drug prices, not even as a last resort. I don’t get this.
PBMs Medco, Express Scripts, and Caremark have been besieged by allegations of impropriety, civil complaints, and customer action. While this PBM-pharmacy manufacturer-pharmacy-CMS-employer-patient thing is enough to make your head spin, this will confuse you even more –
If PBMs screw up really badly and lose a lot of money during the next two years, the taxpayers will bail them out .
What does this mean for you?
less faith in “free-market” capitalism?


Joe Paduda is the principal of Health Strategy Associates

SUBSCRIBE BY EMAIL

SEARCH THIS SITE

A national consulting firm specializing in managed care for workers’ compensation, group health and auto, and health care cost containment. We serve insurers, employers and health care providers.

 

DISCLAIMER

© Joe Paduda 2024. We encourage links to any material on this page. Fair use excerpts of material written by Joe Paduda may be used with attribution to Joe Paduda, Managed Care Matters.

Note: Some material on this page may be excerpted from other sources. In such cases, copyright is retained by the respective authors of those sources.

ARCHIVES

Archives